Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Substituted Bill),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, introduced pursuant to the provisions of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

Glasgow Corporation Bill (Substituted Bill.)

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Conway and Penmaenmawr Joint Hospital District) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ADVERTISEMENTS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Last Friday, in this House, a unanimous vote was given for the Second Reading of the Rural Amenities Bill. I realise that there will be considerable opposition to the present Measure, which is primarily designed to give some measure of protection to dwellers in towns and urban districts, more especially those in country districts. The Bill has been much discussed in the country and has bumped up against a good deal of opposition in the shape of vested interests, who have been very active in their propaganda against its passing through this House. The first Clause of the Bill is to increase the powers of local authorities for the protection of their districts from disfigurement by advertisements. The second and third Clauses are designed to extend to the urban district councils, irrespective of population, power to frame by-laws, for approval afterwards by the Home Office, for the regulation and carrying out of the provisions of the Acts of 1907 and 1925, and the provisions of this Bill, if passed into law. The fourth Clause is merely the short title.
Under the Act of 1907, the Advertisements Regulation Act, by-laws were authorised to be made for
the regulation and control of hoardings and similar structures used for the purpose of advertising, when they exceeded 12 feet in height; for regulating, restricting or preventing the exhibition of advertisements in such places and in such manner as to affect injuriously the amenities of a public park or pleasure promenade, or to disfigure the natural beauty of the landscape.
Under the Advertisements Regulation (Amendment) Act of 1925 those powers were extended. The by-law giving powers was extended to
regulating, restricting or preventing… the exhibition of advertisements so as to disfigure or injuriously affect—

(a) the view of rural scenery from a highway or railway, or from any public place or water; or
2566
(b) the amenities of any village within the district of a rural district council; or
(c) the amenities of any historic or public building or monument or of any place frequented by the public solely or chiefly on account of its beauty or historic interest."
Hon. Members will agree that while these provisions give authority for the protection of rural scenery and rural amenities, there is very little chance in them for the town council or the urban district council to protect the amenities of their particular districts. The Urban District Councils' Association are very strongly of that opinion. Ever since these Acts have been passed, they have pressed almost annually for the extension of the powers. At a conference of the urban districts councils in 1926, Mr. Shelley, of Surbiton, read a paper on the subject, and the following resolution was passed unanimously:—
That this Conference of Urban District Councils is of the opinion that owing to the extensive advertisement schemes now being carried out in this country whereby disfigurement is caused to the public highways, and in view of the fact that no general statutory provision exists for the adequate control thereof by local authorities, the time has now arrived when local authorities should be given power to control the erection, maintenance, and removal of all advertising stations, whatever their nature, erected or maintained or proposed to be erected or maintained ill their respective districts; further, that the executive council of the Association be asked to draft a Bill for presentation to Parliament to confer on local authorities the desired powers.
The suggestions in that resolution go further than anything that is proposed in the present Bill. In the year 1928, a Bill on these lines was introduced by
Mr. Looker, but it was blocked on Second Reading, and got no further. In 1929, a further conference of urban district councils passed another resolution, unanimously, when there were present 656 representatives of 343 urban district councils. The resolution was as follows:
That the executive council be requested to take all necessary steps at the earliest opportunity to re-introduce into the House of Commons the Advertisements Regulation (Amendment) Bill, prepared by the Association.
That Bill is identical with the Bill now introduced. Therefore, we can conclude that this Bill has the support of the members of the Urban District Councils' Association, who represent a population of over eight and a half millions. It has also the support of the Municipal
Councils' Association, who represent something like 17 millions, so that a very large body of opinion is behind this Bill, although that opinion is not as vociferous as some of the interests against the Bill. The Bill is opposed by
the County Councils' Association, chiefly on the ground that they do not agree with Clauses 2 and 3, which are designed to give powers to the urban district councils, irrespective of population. Clause 1 has been designed with the object of giving powers especially to urban district councils. I contend that an urban district council has a right as much as a county council to take steps to protect the amenities of its district. A rural district has many advantages that no town can ever hope to have. There is no reason why the councils, who are the elected representatives of the people dwelling in the areas, should not have the power to protect their amenities by such measures as they think right. All that they ask is that they should have the power to frame by-laws, which have to be submitted for the sanction of the Home Secretary. If anyone contravened those by-laws they would have to go before a magistrate.
This Bill docs not, as has been stated, prohibit all outdoor advertising. Urban district authorities have power to arrange the construction of their streets and control the erection of houses. Why should they not have control over these advertisements which, I contend, sometimes disfigure the area. The County Councils' Association have said that it is no use giving these increased powers to urban district councils because those councils which already possess them, that is, councils with over 10,000 population, have not exercised them in the past. Only 18 per cent. of the urban district councils have framed by-laws under the Acts of 1907 and 1925, but the reason is perfectly clear. It is because it is hard to frame by-laws to protect urban or town districts under these Acts. They refer to public promenades which might come under a town area, but, generally speaking, they are more designed for the country districts than for the towns.
It is said by hon. Members opposite that there is no public opinion behind this Bill, that people do not want any change, and that there are sufficient regulations
at present to control these advertisements. Public opinion, I believe, is rising on this question, and you have an instance of that in the fact that several important industrial corporations have voluntarily changed their policy in regard to outdoor advertisements. I read a paragraph in the "Times" the other day in which it was said that the following firms had changed their policy in this respect: The Dunlop Rubber Company, the Shell Mex Company, the Anglo-American Oil Company, the British Petroleum Company, and Messrs. J. C. Eno.

Mr. PALIN: And quite rime that they did.

Sir A. KNOX: I quite agree. A great many more people now travel by road and their enjoyment is marred by this disfigurement of the country-side and the towns through which they pass. Several local authorities have obtained powers under private Bills to control advertisements in their area, among them Glasgow and Edinburgh. Let me quote from a letter from the Town Clerk of Edinburgh who was asked what effect the Act had been as regards advertisements in the City of Edinburgh. His letter is dated 24th February:
The powers in regard to the regulation and control of advertisements and hoardings were originally obtained in 1899. We consider that the operation of these powers in Edinburgh has been a very great advantage. We have succeeded in removing very many unsightly hoardings and advertisements, especially in main thoroughfares. There is no exemption as regards hoardings under 12 feet in height; we would consider such an exemption very undesirable.
Other towns cannot touch advertisements under 12 feet in height, and very often such hoardings become affected by rain. The original advertisements are torn off, and fly about in every direction. There is a very strong organised opposition against the Bill chiefly on the part of interested parties. It is contended that the Bill will cause a great deal of unemployment in the bill-posting trade. I have been at some pains to ascertain the exact number of individuals now employed in the bill-costing and advertising trades. The census of 1921 did not distinguish between advertising and billposting agencies. They are grouped together, and the total number of people over 12 years of ago employed was, males 7,424, females 2,320,
a total of 9,744. If you analyse these figures a little further you find that they include commercial travellers, canvassers, advertising agents, authors, artists and clerks; and we may conclude that most of these people are employed in advertising generally, which includes advertising in newspapers and not only in billposting and out-door advertisements. I do not think it is fair to jump to the conclusion that all these people will be thrown out of employment if the Bill becomes law. There remain only the messengers, 295, two-thirds of whom are juveniles, and the undefined people, 314, a total of 609.
There is a certain amount of employment connected indirectly with the bill-posting industry. It is not merely the people who stick up the posters but the people who make the hoardings, the carpenters, and the people who make tin-plates. One billposting agency has issued a circular which enumerates 25 different trades which will be, it is said, adversely affected. I read with interest that the list includes paper-makers, horse-breeders, harness-makers, tyre and accessory manufacturers, fodder merchants, rope-makers, concrete manufacturers, artists and van builders. It is a little stretch of the imagination to say that horse-breeders are going to be affected by this Bill; and a statement of that kind defeats its own object by its exaggeration. But suppose I under-estimate the number of people who will be affected by this Bill the question which really remains is, is this billposting to be permitted to continue to disfigure the countryside and the amenities of the towns? Other Bills have passed this House, supported by Members in all parts, which have affected employment adversely. Take the case of the Shops Early Closing Act. It may be argued that if shops were kept open you would give employment to more people, yet no one opposed that Act on that ground, nor is there a demand that it should be repealed. There is a tax on motor-cars. Hon. Members might argue that a tax on motor-cars decreases the output; that the more motor-cars you make the more employment there is in the industry. But no one has proposed that the tax should be repealed. In 1928 we passed an Act called the Petroleum Consolidation Act which permitted by-laws to be made regulating and prohibiting the establishment of petroleum-filling stations. You
might say that builders would be employed in building these stations, but the House did not take that argument into account and passed that Act.
The object of the Bill is not to prohibit all advertisements, but to give local authorities power to control advertisements in the interest of the dwellers in their different districts. That is a fair proposal. One bill-posting agency has put forward as an argument in favour of their activities that their advertisements are provided to the public free of cost. Really, I suppose we have to consider ourselves lucky that no toll-gate is erected in front of some of these hoardings and that passers by do not have to pay a toll. Another argument that is used is that the control of out-door advertisements will increase unemployment generally, in other words, that these advertisements increase the demand for the products they advertise. That may be true of some advertisements, but it is certainly not true of all. On the Bath Road, along which I have to go about twice a week, I see two advertisements. One is "Spend the winter at Monte Carlo," and the other "Spend the summer at Deauville." No one can contend that those two advertisements, if done away with, would increase unemployment here.

Mr. FOOT: What about "Guinness is good for you?"

Sir A. KNOX: That brings us to another point. Most of these advertisements are of articles of food or drink. But hon. Members, even the most healthy in this House, have only a certain capacity for eating chocolates or swallowing beer, and if you are driving out to get a little pleasure in a country district and you come across three advertisements of chocolates, are you, because there are three advertisements, going to eat three times the amount of chocolate that you would otherwise eat? If that is the fact, in the interest of our own health these advertisements should be prohibited.

Mr. PALIN: But it is nice to know that "Skegness is so bracing!"

Sir A. KNOX: We see many advertisements of different kinds of beer. Honestly, do you think that people are influenced by the name of the beer that
they see advertised? I always stick to one kind of beer, and I always shall. If that beer does not advertise and all the other beers do advertise, I shall not drink them on that account. The billposters have not confined their opposition to this Bill to general letters sent round to Members of the House. They have also sent out letters—naturally, of course, for if they do not understand propaganda, who does?—to a large number of people, with whom, of course, every Member of this House has natural sympathy—to the poor people who let sites for advertisements on the gable ends of houses or in fields and gardens. I have here a copy of one of these letters sent out by a billposting agency to one of these people. The first sentence reads:
If this Bill is passed this month, you will lose the rental we are paying you.
If that is true, it is a confession by this particular agency that that advertisement interferes with the amenities of the district where it is placed. This Bill does not prohibit all advertisements, but only those that the local authority decides are disfiguring the landscape. The second sentence is:
You will pay increased rates, because the local authorities will be deprived of the rates paid on advertisement sites.
With all due respect to the agency, I do not think that that is true, because if the fortunate person had £4 a year for letting the site for a boarding, and if in future she does not get that £4, the rating value of her hereditament will go down and she will pay less in rates. It is true that the district as a whole may lose certain rates, but an infinitesimal part will fall on this particular person. The next sentence is:
You will lose some of your trade because unemployment will be increased. Write to your Member of Parliament at once to oppose this unjust Measure.
I know that hon. Members have had a great deal of correspondence on this subject. Whether this Bill goes any further or not, I think its introduction has at any rate done this public service, that it has brought about a discussion of the question whether we should not have some measure of further control over these bill-posting agencies, and, lastly, it has brought a fortune to the Post Office from the sale of stamps. Some hon. Members may state that the Bill will interfere with the paper trade. I think that the
enormous amount of paper that is being used in the correspondence against the Bill and in the replies to those complaints are a set-off. I propose to leave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) an explanation of Clauses 2 and 3, which refer more particularly to local authorities and their relations with one another. Owing to my having spent much of my life abroad, I am not as conversant as he is with the different functions of local authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to second the motion.
I apologise for doing so, not because I do not believe in the Bill, but because I am addressing the House so soon again after my speech of last night. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Second Reading congratulated the opposition to the Bill on the wonderful exhibition which they had made of propaganda. It has been an eye-opener to us. It has shown us that, whatever may be said, private enterprise makes a very good stand against the urban and borough councils. I think the country should know the numbers of the people who are opposing the Bill. The number of people in the billposting trade, according to the census returns, is over 9,000. Then there are, perhaps, 30,000 printers, and there are some other trades. Against these there are the elected representatives of 30,000,000 people in the urban district and borough council areas. As far as we know, the borough councils and urban districts are unanimous in their support of the Bill. What about the rest of the population of the country? It may be said that the county councils are not in favour of the Bill. There may be some county councils against the Bill, but I would point out that the rural district councils are supporting it. So that in addition to the 30,000,000 people there are the elected representatives of the rural districts.

Mr. HURD: The Rural District Councils Association supports the Bill, but thinks that the extended powers ought to be given to rural district councils as well.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: It says that a stronger Bill ought to be brought in to permit the extension of the powers to
rural district councils. My hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Second Reading has asked me to say something about the Clauses. I understand that the main objection is taken to the first Clause, because it extends the powers of the Acts of 1907 and 1925. I would emphasise the fact that those Acts deal rather more with the rural than with the urban aspect of advertisements. While it is no use, as a rule, to an urban district to have the power of preventing anything that interferes with rural scenery and amenities, what the Clause does is to give powers which will help the urban districts in various ways in cases where there is not much rural scenery. Clause 1 is the main part of the Bill to which objection is taken. It asks for powers to prohibit the exhibition of advertisements which are put up so as to disfigure or injuriously affect the appearance or amenities of a district or any part thereof. I do not believe that any body would object to such a provision unless they thought that there was something sinister behind it, or that some cranks on an urban district or borough council would find in these words some means of stopping advertisements altogether. I believe that that fear is behind a great deal of the opposition, and I shall be glad to do anything in my power to dissipate such a fear.
I would not support any Bill which would throw all these men out of work and I do not think any Member would do so; but I submit that if the Bill passes into law there will be no fewer men employed in the trade than there are today. If there is opposition on the part of individual billposting companies then, as has been well said, it is practically an admission that their advertisements do disfigure or injuriously affect the appearance or amenities of these districts. The second Clause of the Bill deals with the delegation of powers. It is a curious fact that while boroughs of under 2,000 inhabitants have powers under the previous Acts, urban districts of under 10,000 do not have such powers and it is hoped to put that matter right by means of this Bill. It may be said that by doing so we shall be giving powers to a great many local authorities and that it is a mistake to delegate powers so widely to local authorities because those authorities may not be able to use
them properly. I submit, however, that the county councils will have quite enough to do for the next three years in connection with the late Government's Rating and Valuation Act and other Acts. I, like other hon. Members, have had conversations with leading members of county councils and they have all said "Do not give us anything more to do because we have quite enough." What we are seeking to do in this Bill is to allow the urban districts to run their own shows so to speak, and to take the work away from the county councils. After all it is the urban district voters who have to live in the districts affected by these advertisements.
Clause 3 is one which is usually inserted in Measures dealing with subjects on which there have been previous enactments and it merely gives power, either to carry on or not to carry on by-laws which have already been made under previous legislation. In reference to this Clause, I wish to deal with one point. It may be said that there has not been sufficient time to see how the Acts of 1925 and 1907 have worked, because only 44 rural councils and 54 urban district councils have made by-laws under those Acts. I contend that the reasons why the urban district councils have not made more by-laws is because those Acts were mainly for rural districts and were intended to refer to places of scenic beauty and parks and historical buildings, and did not apply so much to the amenities of the towns. I should also like to stress the point that there is a distinct cash value in urban amenities as such. There is a cash value, for instance, in keeping a residential area free from annoyances of any kind and there might be a cash value in confining advertisements in a seaside resort to one part of the town. People who go to a seaside resort from the Midlands, or from any other industrial district, do not wish to be reminded constantly of their toil and of the things which they have left behind for the time being. They want to get away from all that, and, while this may be a controversial subject, I think it will be agreed that a distinct cash value exists in the properly regulated amenities of an urban district. The existing Acts do not afford much help to the urban districts in this respect and, as I say, it is for that reason
that so few urban district councils have made by-laws.
The opposition to this Bill has been conducted on orthodox lines. I do not think we have had any fresh developments but I think that one or two of the documents sent to Members of Parliament have sought to make it appear that this was part of Lord Beaverbrook's campaign. However, they have engaged in a plan of advertising on which I should like to congratulate them. As far as we know the Bill will not affect those who have been most active in opposing it. The Bill Posting Association say that their trade will be destroyed, but do they admit that their trade adversely affects the amenities of different districts, because it is only in that case that the trade can be interfered with by the passing of the Bill? If they do not interfere with these amenities then they are all right as far as this Measure is concerned; but, by opposing the Bill, the Bill Posting Association are in danger of being taken as tacitly admitting that their trade activities do injuriously affect the amenities. Personally I do not believe that this is so in the vast majority of cases, but the Bill Posting Association are not the only people engaged in these activities. There are other associations and there are firms who put up bills and whose operations cannot be controlled and I would go so far as to say this to our opponents—that if the whole of the billposting of this country were in the hands of the Bill Posting Association and if there was a liaison. between that association and all the firms concerned and also all the associations interested in the amenities of rural and urban districts, then, I say, frankly that there might be no reason for this Bill. I have no fear however as to the future of properly conducted advertising if this Bill is passed, and I join my hon. and gallant Friend in asking the House to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. ALLEN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now", and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
Before going into the details of this Bill and giving the reasons why I think it ought not to be passed into law, I should like to say something on the industry which the House is now being
asked to deal with legislatively for the second time within five years. Although this industry is a comparatively large one and is more or less constantly before the public eye, I feel that many hon. Members are not really familiar with its character. When I was a small boy attending a preparatory school I used to be thrilled by the legend which one saw on walls to the effect that bill-stickers were to be prosecuted. I was thrilled because I knew that my father was, among other things, a bill-sticker, which I conceived to be a romantic and dangerous occupation. I used to picture my father emerging in the small hours of the morning with his brush and pail and dashing round corners putting up posters, with the flying squad on his track, and I gained considerable prestige at school from the fact that my father was engaged in a business which rendered him liable to prosecution. I mention these facts because I feel that hon. Members may retain in their minds ideas something like my own adolescent conception about the advertising business. At the age of 17 I actually became a billposter myself, and began to realise exactly what the industry was and I should like to spend a few minutes in explaining to the House its character and methods.
There are several different categories of outdoor advertising. The principal is that carried on by firms practising as billposting contractors. The business of these firms is to buy or rent sites, principally in large industrial towns, and to erect hoardings on those sites. They secure contracts for exhibiting on the hoardings the printed posters of the principal manufacturing and distributing houses of the country, and they employ large numbers of working billposters. This job is a very skilled job, as any hon. Member would find if he tried to stand on a ladder and paste a large number of sheets of paper to a wooden structure in a high wind, so that the parts of the design did not overlap or wrinkles appear under the sheets. It is a job which takes a number of years for the man to become thoroughly qualified. These hoardings are numerous in towns all over the country, as the hon. and gallant Member pointed out. Posters are being constantly renewed and changed, and a large number of men are retained in constant skilled and regular employment.
With regard to the figures to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred, I was not quite clear as to their character, for the simple reason that he referred to agencies. The largest are entirely restricted to bill-posting, but there are also a number of bill-posting agents with small staffs who are not the contractors concerned. In the bill-posting industry sons follow their fathers. In many families throughout the country it is almost a hereditary occupation, and, what is more, a skilled and healthy occupation. The longevity of bill-posters is well known. This is an important point to remember, as hon. Members, no doubt, have often found in their constituencies where working-men are worried about getting their sons into good and at the the same time healthy jobs. It is not always an easy thing to do in this trade.
I have referred to the large bill-posting companies, but the companies vary in size from several representing each of them many hundreds of thousands of pounds of capital, down to one-man shows in small country towns, very often worked by a father doing the outdoor work with his son, while his wife or daughter does the indoor work. [An HON. MEMBER: "Paste."] Here is an industry in which large firms give employment to a considerable number of skilled workers, and where there are also a great number of small firms, owned by what might be called worker-owner families. The present Bill is one of two things. Either it will not drastically affect the number of hoardings, and hence the amount of employment in the industry, as has been pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend, in which case it is a redundant Bill, since there has been recent legislation of a controlling character, namely, the Advertisements Regulation (Amendment) Act, 1925. If we take the first interpretation of the Bill, it is unnecessary, and, in view of the recent legislation there has been on the subject, I submit that the time of the House is being wasted in discussing this Bill. Alternatively, the Bill is a drastic Bill which proposes to reduce substantially the number of hoardings erected in the great centres of population. In that case, it is a Bill which will hit the working billposter and the small firms first,
I will postulate, for the sake of argument, that the Bill, if it becomes law.
will involve a reduction of hoardings in this country of from 25 to 40 per cent. I will take the lower figure of 25 per cent. for the sake of argument. What will be the result? The small worker-family businesses, where two sons are employed, will not be able to carry both sons in future. In the large firms, if there are fewer hoardings to be posted, fewer billposters will be required, the economic system being what it is. Capital, on the other hand, may save itself, to a certain extent, by increasing the rates charged for the hoardings that remain; at any rate, the decline in returns will be gradual. But in respect of the labour employed, as each hoarding is removed, each bill-poster will come one step nearer to the end of the job in which he has spent his life and acquired his skill, and how can his skill help him to another job at the same wages—a healthy outdoor job—when he is probably a man of middle-age, with a standard of living fixed at three or four pounds a week?
There has been considerable comment on the fact that the opposition to this Bill has been organised by what have been described as interested parties or vested interests. I submit that the capital in the industry will be affected very slightly. The demand will remain the same, and rates can be increased as hoardings are reduced, but the labour in the industry will be immediately, if gradually, affected. I would venture to recall to my hon. and gallant Friend that the printers' trade unions have sent out more communications and letters on this subject than the employers' associations. I have spoken at some length, I am afraid, on the details of the bill-posting industry, because I feel that an understanding of it is a necessary introduction to any proper consideration of the Bill before this House. I have spoken specifically of the bill-posting labour affected. But the bill-posters are only part, and not the greater part, of the labour interests affected by any legislation to restrict and reduce the scope of outdoor advertising. It takes more labour to print a poster than it does to post it on a hoarding. The hon. Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor), who is seconding the rejection of this Bill, has given his life to the workers in the printing industry, and he has the respect and regard of both workers and employers in that industry. His knowledge
of the employment question in the printing industry is far greater than mine, and I propose to leave him to discuss that side of the question.
It is not only a question of bill-posters and printers. The poster-advertising industry is a great consumer of timber and sheet-iron used in the construction of hoardings, and the printers who manufacture posters, which is a printing industry entirely different from the bill-posting industry, are large customers of the paper and ink manufacturing industries, and also of machine manufacturers. In regard to paper, I understand that special machines are used in the paper manufacturing industry for the manufacture of paper suitable to the printing of posters and able to withstand exposure to weather. The most modern of these machines costs, I am informed, £140,000 each, and they are relatively useless except for the manufacture of poster paper. This Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, and bill-posters in my constituency are not therefore affected, but I am informed by the managing director of a large printing works in my constituency, that 80 per cent. of his trade is in posters, sent to all parts of the United Kingdom. They are, with other printing firms in Belfast, customers of a paper mill in the vicinity, whose trade would also be adversely affected by any Bill leading to the reduction of the output of posters.
I mention these facts only to show the ramifications in one city of an important industry, and to urge upon the House that this Bill affects, not one trade, but a large number of varied trades employing many thousands of highly-skilled workmen. Clause 1 of the Bill may seem innocuous to hon. Members who are not familiar with the working of the industry under existing Acts, but it is, in fact, as dangerous as it is brief, for the very reason that it would not be introduced at all were it not meant to go much further than the powers given to local authorities under the Acts of 1907 and 1925. The provisions of Clause 1 apply to any part of any district, or to any street or road. They are wide and indefinite, and they remove all the reasonable safeguards which exist for the outdoor advertiser—not the erector of field signs along country roads, but the man who employs labour and pays rent, rates and
taxes on his sites in great industrial centres like Glasgow, Manchester and Sheffield.
Some hon. Members may have studied the exhibition of photographs in Westminster Hall, although I fear that the recent cold spell was not conducive to lingering in that rather chilly place, where the psychic atmosphere is further chilled by a number of plaques indicating the spots occupied by hon. Members of other generations, either already dead or awaiting sentence of death. For this exhibition, photographs were deliberately made by gentlemen with sufficient leisure to pursue their hobby of a number of hoardings from among many thousands of hoardings in this country, and they are photographs of a few hoardings which may be regarded as unsightly or inappropriately situated. Furthermore, I am afraid that the organisers of the exhibition have gone so far as to resort to faking the photographs in coloured inks, and any lay-out man knows how easy it is to secure an artificial exaggeration of effect by the application of coloured ink. By some strange oversight, or as the result of muddled thinking, there has slipped into the exhibition two or three photographs of hoardings which are scheduled to be removed under the Act of 1925. We have therefore ocular evidence produced by the promoters of the present Bill that hoardings can be removed, and are being removed under existing legislation.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The promoters of the Bill have nothing to do with these hoardings.

12 n.

Mr. ALLEN: I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. I meant the people behind the Bill. The reason why a greater number of hoardings, particularly in rural areas have not been removed under the amending Act of 1925 is that a period of five years' grace for the removal of existing hoardings which are objected to is allowed, and this period has not yet expired. When this period does expire at the end of this year, a large number of hoardings will be due to come down. The powers given by the Acts of 1907 and 1925 are sufficient for all reasonable purposes for the preservation of amenities and the protection of the countryside against disfigurement by advertisements. Although the Advertisements
Regulation Act of 1907 was passed 22 years ago, and in many cases by-laws were shortly afterwards made under it to prevent the disfigurement of the landscape, large numbers of boards advertising pills, distemper, dog food, newspapers and so on, still remain standing in the open fields and among charming rural scenery. The by-laws that have been made are sufficient to compel the removal of these, but they have not been put into force, while in urban districts and big towns, the legislation has been pushed much further, and existing powers have been fully used. The regulation of outdoor advertising is, in fact, stricter in the urban areas than it is in rural areas, although the rural areas really require the most regulation and legislation.
I submit that the Bill before the House is an entirely unnecessary Bill in view of existing legislation, which is generally speaking—three may be exceptions—adequate to deal with the admitted abuses which occur in outdoor advertising, as in other branches of industry. There has not yet been time to see the full effect of the 1925 Act, and it is unreasonable to legislate further until this Act has been tried out. Secondly, this Bill has been prepared without proper knowledge of the problems involved. Industrial interests have not been consulted by the promoters, although in the case of the 1925 Act, the Scapa Society who were behind that Measure, gave generous and sympathetic consideration to representations from the industry, with the result that it passed with the support of those industries; it passed as an agreed Bill.
It is becoming customary—I think wisely—so to consult industrial interests, both employers and workers, before promoting legislation in this House. Neither the employers' associations nor the trade' unions concerned in outdoor advertising are prepared to sit down under arbitrary legislation promoted by non-Parliamentary bodies, who have in this case stooped to some questionable methods of propaganda, and who have really no knowledge of the industrial conditions over which they are asking the House to impose new and far-reaching controls. I submit, further, that this Bill will have a gradual, and at the same time increasingly serious, effect on unemployment. I do not wish to exaggerate the unemployment
issue, but I consider that it would be a slow and gradual effect. It would have a definite effect on employment in the printing and billposting industries, and the more strongly the Bill is administered, the greater would become the unemployment in those industries. In fact, one might almost describe the Bill as a Bill to promote unemployment.
At the same time, I do not suggest—and I would be far from suggesting—that my hon. and gallant Friends who proposed and seconded the Motion had any idea, when they undertook to pilot the Bill through the House, of the serious effect it might have on employment in the industries concerned. One has only to be in the House a short time to realise that every member of every party is doing his best to contribute to the cure of unemployment. It is far from my desire to suggest that my hon. and gallant Friends are knowingly sponsoring a Bill which will, if passed, have a serious effect on skilled employment in many industries, but I feel that they have associated themselves with this Bill without perhaps investigating its implications from the employment point of view.
In conclusion, I would like to consider the problem upon a basis removed from the controversial points of the Bill. A man would be very mean and soulless who did not have a share in his heart of the desire of all parties and of all classes to conserve the incomparable beauties of our country from the crude soilings of mechanistic civilisation. He would be a very poor statesman who did not see the vital necessity of improving the environmental conditions of the towns, in which 80 per cent. of our people lead their lives. But at the same time one must have a sense of proportion. We live in an industrial age—man is using the earth and not merely existing on it. The industrial England of to-day is lees beautiful than the agricultural England of the 18th century, as was pointed out yesterday, but I submit, also, that the agricultural England of the 18th century was less beautiful than the woodland England of the Normans or the Romans, though I think that, on the whole, the people who live in it are probably more happy and not less happy.
There are some who would go so far as to sweep away the bungalows of the workers who come out of the cities for
the week-end, in the same way as William the Conqueror swept away Saxon villages, in order to make himself a deer forest. A hoarding at the cross-roads may not be a very picturesque thing, but it is not quite so ugly an object as the body of some poor thief hanging on the gallows tree—a sight which once used to be seen at many cross-roads. We must get a proper sense of proportion between the industrial needs of the people and their aesthetic needs. Their aesthetic needs are equally vital. Industrial licence and aesthetic prohibition are equally undesirable. The outdoor advertising industry is part of the mechanism of distribution, and effective distribution is at once the great problem of modern industry and the desirable end of social welfare. To produce goods cheaply and distribute them widely—that is the great question to-day. Manufacturers use hoardings in order to make their goods known. The more their goods become known the more they sell of them, and the more they sell the more they can produce and the cheaper the cost per unit becomes. The cheaper the cost per unit the more goods people can buy.
After all, it is materialism that civilises, that raises the standard of living and of thinking. Outdoor advertising also has an important social interest and educative value. A very great personage said once that "the hoardings are the poor man's picture gallery." I submit there is a good deal of truth in that. It was said seriously. The public galleries are closed when the poor man knocks off work, and he has no private collection of his own. Whatever may be said about them, posters are often the only patch of colour along a drab street. However inferior their art may seem to hon. Members on both sides of the House with expensive and cultivated tastes, these posters are designed and printed specifically to please the poor man's taste and humour, and the artists are frequently paid more than fashionable portrait painters—and I think their work is a good deal more beneficial.
The educative value of the poster is appreciated and used by all political parties, and the more the press becomes concentrated in a few hands the more important and the more vital will posters become to the political parties as a
medium for the cheap and uncontrolled dissemination of political thought. Whatever the future forms of social and industrial organisation in this country may be, the hoardings must remain an important medium for approaching and educating the people. I was interested to see that even the Bolsheviks are keen billposters. As an example of the uses to which outdoor advertising may be employed in the ideal socialised state, I remember that when I was in Russia four years ago out-door publicity campaigns were being carried on to encourage the people to read more and also to wash more.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: Did it have any effect?

Mr. ALLEN: Out-door advertising is a vital part of the national economy. It is a new branch of the distributive mechanism, and it is popularly appreciated, and I submit that most of the agitation against it is largely stimulated by people who, quite lightly, wish to preserve the amenities and the beauty of the country but, at the same time, have not really studied the question from the industrial point of view. In future developments of town planning schemes the industry must be recognised and its needs taken into consideration. Provision for properly constructed and properly regulated hoardings should be made, and they should be regarded as equally necessary to the needs of the people as street lighting, omnibus services, or drains. The industry can be and is being properly organised and regulated through its own efforts and under existing legislation. This reasonable legislation which now exists is completely different from the restrictions, and even extermination, envisaged in the wide and undetermined powers provided under Clause I of this Bill, and I have no hesitation in moving the rejection of the Bill.

Mr. NAYLOR: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am pleased to find myself in association with my hon. friend, the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Allen). It is true that common trade interests make strange political bedfellows, but that certainly adds to the gaiety of our pleasant Friday afternoon. If I say that I am interested from the trade
point of view, I hope the House Will not assume that I am opposing this Bill on trade interests alone. The Bill will undoubtedly affect the employment of large numbers of men and women. So far from its being a mere trade question affecting only those engaged in the printing and bill-posting trades, I would point out that there is not a Member in this House who has not a large number of constituents interested in this question. The express proposal to extend the powers of the Acts of 1907 and 1925 to urban district councils and county councils is merely intensifying the effects of the legislation now in existence, and is going to add enormously to the displacement of labour if the Kill is operated by the public authorities. In London, especially, the printing trade is one of the staple trades, and it would not be right for any London Member to allow a Bill of this kind to be proposed without pointing out the serious results that are likely to follow if it becomes law. What is true of London would be true of Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and all other urban districts where the printing trade has established itself. Something has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) as to the small number of men likely to be displaced in consequence of the exercise of these new powers, but his mind seems to have been concentrated on the belief that only a limited section of the industry is likely to be affected and he appears to think that the billposting industry is the only section that would suffer in consequence of this amending legislation.

Sir A. KNOX: I did not imagine that for a moment. It is impossible from the census returns to find out what proportion of the printing trade is actually engaged on poster work.

Mr. MILLS: Or the wood-working trade.

Mr. NAYLOR: I will endeavour to enlighten the House as to the number of men actually engaged in the trade, although I cannot say to what extent the numbers will be affected if the Clauses of this Bill are put into operation. In the printing trade there are between 200,000 and 250,000 employed and, taking a rough estimate, I should say that between 25,000 and 30,000 are employed
exclusively upon the production of the type of work which will be mostly affected by the Clauses of this Bill. I am not suggesting that all the people employed in this particular class of work will be displaced; it is a matter of degree as to how the trade will be affected. I would like to point out that we have not yet exhausted all the possibilities of the Act of 1925, which does not expire until July of this year, when it will have been in operation for five years. It would not be right to base any estimate of the probable displacement of labour likely to be brought about by this Bill upon the experience of the Act of 1925, because the Act now in force has not run its whole gamut until July of this year.
I contend that it is the duty of this House to look very closely into any proposals of this kind—industrial conditions being what they are—which are likely to have the effect of displacing labour and causing an increase of unemployment, and I believe that this particular Bill will have that effect. Even the Mover of the Bill admits that that will be one of the effects, although he depreciates the actual results so far as this Bill is concerned. We have heard something about the sweet use of advertisements, and the contention of the Mover of the Bill is that the poster is not a means of increasing trade. I am prepared to cross swords with the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that argument.
I would like to ask him, is it likely that this great industry would have sprung up and would have established itself in this way if trade was not fostered by the use of these posters? It may be quite true that, in certain cases, such as the case quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe, two commodities which make exactly the same appeal when advertised do not necessarily add to the demand in the home market, but there is merely an endeavour to establish a preference for one or the other; but there are many cases in which trade is stimulated and a potential demand is transformed into an effective demand be cause of the use of posters. The poster and the advertising industries may well be described—

Sir A. KNOX: Does the hon. Member get a thirst if he sees a beer sign?

An HON. MEMBER: You can get one without seeing a sign.

Mr. NAYLOR: I think the answer to that question would depend on the time of year. Certainly if a poster of that kind comes into your vision on a very hot day it would have a very distinct appeal indeed, and to that extent it would foster trade, and possibly if there were two posters it might mean two drinks. The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe, by his intervention has just indicated in a very innocent kind of way, what I was trying to explain with far greater labour and elaboration, and that is that the appeal of the poster undoubtedly does encourage the purchase of commodities in the home market, and all British commodities are advertised on the hoardings of this country. So we may at least expect all those who sit on this side of the House to come to our assistance in the rejection of this Bill. Something has been said, and will yet be said this afternoon, concerning the amenities of the countryside, but nothing has been said about the amenities of the urban districts. No one, not even the Mover of the Bill, will suggest that posters are an eyesore so far as the towns are concerned. There may be something to be said when the suggestion is made that the posters, or some of them, that we see in the countryside, do not harmonise with the general scheme of things in the rural districts. That may be true, but so far as the towns are concerned they are an ornament.

Sir A. KNOX: I hope the hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting him again, but my whole argument was that these posters in the towns are an eyesore, and that the unfortunate people in the towns cannot get away from them.

Mr. NAYLOR: My hon. and gallant Friend is very unfortunate in the direction in which he takes his walks in urban districts. He evidently has overlooked the fact that during recent years the quality of advertising of all kinds has greatly improved. What he has said might have been correct with regard to the work that was produced 20 or 25 years ago; but does he know—if not, I will remind him and other hon. Members—that we have some of the greatest artists in the world engaged in producing posters? Has my hon. and gallant
Friend never passed by a railway station and admired some of these works of art produced through the agency of artists, and also through the agency of printers, who are skilled craftsmen in that work? These points have to be remembered when we came to vote upon this Bill.
I was referring to the amenities of the countryside. I have every sympathy with the desire for the preservation of the amenities of the countryside, but in whose interests are those amenities to be preserved? Are we not to consider the relative importance and desirability, on the one side, of those amenities being preserved, and, on the other side, the importance and desirability of preserving the employment of men whose products, even though they may be the subject of criticism, certainly do not interfere seriously with the enjoyment of those who use those country districts the amenities of which are to be preserved. Is it the owners and drivers of motor cars passing through the countryside whose amenities are to be preserved? I am here representing 37,000 of my constituents who rarely, if ever, see the countryside, so that, when hon. Members speak of preserving the amenities of the countryside, they mean preserving all the beauties of Nature for the users and drivers of motor cars. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] May I say that I am not prejudiced in this matter? I drive a motor car myself at times, and I can never pass through a country village and pass an inhabitant of that village on the footway without feeling, when he looks at me, that he regards me as an unmitigated nuisance. If we were to consult the dwellers in the countryside as to which is the greater nuisance, the poster, which is the work of an artist, or the motor car dashing through the village, I think that, if they wanted a Bill passed in this House and had the choice, they would propose a Bill for the abolition, not of the poster, but of the motor car. If you weigh up the objections—and I am dealing now with the motor car as one of the spoilers of the amenities of the countryside—if you compare the two, you find that the poster which is regarded as a spoiler of the amenities of the countryside offends the sight, but the motor car offends the sight, it offends the hearing, it offends the sense of smell, and, over and above all that, it is a common danger to those who live in the
countryside. Therefore, it is beside the point for hon. Members to talk about the amenities of the countryside as an argument in favour of placing these restrictions upon the exhibition of posters.
I hope that the House will consider seriously the industrial and economic side of this question. My political faith obliges me to confess that, although it may be necessary under our present system to advertise, advertising itself is waste, and takes no real part in the actual production of wealth. But we have to consider the conditions under which we are now living, and, those conditions being what they are, I say that it would be the height of folly for Members of this House to declare that, because a certain artistic sense is violated on occasion, they are therefore in favour of depriving thousands of men of their employment, and of leaving this House to commit a folly which it will for ever afterwards regret.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: Like other Members of this House, I have received a great deal of correspondence with regard to this Bill. Some of it, I may say, struck me as being a little sordid; it was a mere appeal to the pocket. Some of it seemed to me to be a little insincere. But one thing that struck me with regard to all of it was that it presupposed such an extraordinary simplicity and stupidity in the recipient. The main argument was this: Local rating authorities live on rates; therefore, they are extraordinarily likely—indeed, almost certain—to begin cutting down the value of the property from which they derive their rates, because it is their nature to, or something of that kind. Do hon. Members really believe that any body of the kind that is put in authority by this Bill would proceed at once to start a crusade against its own main source of revenue? The person who presupposes that seems to me to be worthy of being placed under restraint. There is not the slightest doubt that the rates are the life-blood of the local authorities. There is not the slightest doubt that these posters pay rates. Is it likely, therefore, that they are going to be put out of existence unnecessarily? Is it supposed that these local bodies are Puritans who have no regard for finance? That is not my experience of them. Is it supposed that they are highbrow aesthetes with views about beauty?
That, again, is not my experience of them. If anything is meant by this opposition, it must be that the gentlemen who have been sending me all this, correspondence believe one of two things—either that town councils are likely to cut down their own rates from excessive love of beauty, or that they will do it from puritanism.
The next point that I want to make is this: Whenever a monopoly is attacked, it always tries to say that the poor working man, and all sorts of people, will be thrown out of work. When public lotteries—those most demoralising things—were abolished in the early 19th century, there was a very great agitation as to the number of unfortunate clerks who were going to be thrown on the world at an advanced age, after having spent their lives in studying the mathematics of lotteries. When the railways were first introduced, the stage-coach proprietors not merely stressed very much the extreme danger of the railways, but raised a terrible agitation in favour of the 90,000 post-boys who were going to be taken out of duty and thrown upon the world by the introduction of these rapid, smelly railway trains. In a similar way, it is always a capital thing to pretend that someone is going to be thrown out of employment by legislation; but I want to examine who will be thrown out of employment by this Bill. It will be only that number of people who are employed on just precisely those pieces of work which a county council or an urban district council, regarding its own pocket, thinks are noxious and objectionable. What proportion of the whole billsticking output is composed of things that town councils, urban councils and county councils, regarding their own pockets, will imagine to be things that ought to be suspended? It is infinitesimal. Therefore all this rhetoric that I have been getting in these papers is insincere.

Mr. NAYLOR: The hon. Gentleman has been applying his remarks to the bill-posting section of the industry. Does he not realise that, in addition to the billposters, there are the men who print the posters?

Sir C. OMAN: The printers who will be affected are precisely that small proportion of printers that is printing that small proportion of posters that are going to be put on that small proportion of
objectionable, unsightly hoardings which the town councils, with a proper regard to their own pockets, are likely to put down. It may be 25,000 to 35,000 is the proportion of printers engaged in the poster printing industry. Can the hon. Member specify how many of them are employed in producing bills which will be likely to be put down by town councils, always with due regard to their own pockets? Would it be 1,000, 500, 50? I do not think so.

Mr. NAYLOR: Would not that depend upon the number of local authorities who operate the Act?

Sir C. OMAN: I know all about local authorities, and I shall presently give examples. I have demonstrated that the number of people who will be affected by this is very small, and now I have to show why I think the Bill is very necessary indeed. An inch of instance is better than a yard of rhetoric, and an ounce of single case is worth a pound of general appeal. So I will tell a story with which I am personally concerned, showing why this Bill is needed. I happen to be the owner of a small Georgian house in Surrey in a purely residential district. A smallholder dwelling opposite has let his frontage to a billposting association, contrary to the appeal of the whole of the residents of the neighbourhood. The local council and the Surrey County Council sent a deputation down to view this nuisance, but found that, as the law stands at present, it is impossible to deal with the greed of a small man who has sold his frontage to a big posting association, and the greed of the big posting association which wanted to spoil the amenities of a road in a very pleasant corner of Surrey.
It may be said, possibly, that that is nothing more than a grievance, but I will show that it is a financial loss. The lady whose house actually faced this large hoarding has a large Georgian bow window which now looks out on 20 feet of hoarding on which, when she first pointed it out to me, there were represented a large blue policeman eating toffee and an avenue of beer bottles leading apparently to infinity. She threw up her lease at the end of her time and went away. She simply could not stand this, and I had to let the house at a less rental.
simply because its value is spoilt by what I can only call the abominable greed of the billstickers' association which comes down into a Surrey road to spoil the letting values of houses.

Mr. ALLEN: The advertising association is not responsible for the erection of these wooden advertising structures, which are let by private contract.

Sir C. OMAN: I was not quoting the hon. Member's particular firm. Shall I say some branch of the monopolistic trade which comes down deliberately to destroy the value of peoples' property? I want to make an appeal to hon. Members opposite. Will they not protect the individual against monopolies, and will they not back those who object to the continual appearance of incitements to beer drinking? One of the things that most disgusted me was two very beefy, bloated men, one apparently an employer and the other an employé, lifting large tankards to each other of some brimming stuff. It is hateful to me to see these large, bloated bibulous people made a permanent exhibition on walls. Is it not the same to a good many Members opposite? Do they really think that invitations to have another drink are proper things to strew all round? I can assure them that such things are loathsome in a Surrey road.
I am not against advertisements in general. They are admirable in their proper place. Some are extremely pretty; occasionally some, like the; celebrated "Bubbles" that the hon. Member quoted, are charming. But everything in its proper place, please. All advertisements are not beautiful, particularly those scenes from films representing agonised ladies and gentlemen reeling and writhing and fainting in coils, depicting some sob-stuff or other; still less those extremely ugly ones that are intended to further the inordinate desire for malt liquor. Let us paper our railway stations and railway arches and places, where it does not matter, with as many of these things as possible, but for heaven's sake give the local council permission to prevent quiet, residential neighbourhoods from being swamped with abominable inartistic stuff. The existing law does not meet the case. In the case I have quoted the local council was with me and the
County Council too;
but it is impossible to move the hoardings. This Bill will make it possible to deal with selfish, greedy, intrusive persons in a proper way.

Mr. BLINDELL: I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman) in his desire to maintain the quietude and the beauty of his Surrey lanes, and I heard him dub billposters generally and small holders, who, after all, are really trying to get an honest living, as greedy individuals because they let their frontages to billposters for the purpose of displaying advertisements.

Sir C. OMAN: Do you regard it right to destroy the value of your neighbour's property?

Mr. BLINDELL: I was coming to that point. I have listened very carefully to all this greed exhibited on the part of the small holder and billposters concerned, and I am wondering really whether there was any greed exhibited on the part of the hon. Gentlemen who so strenuously objected to these posters being displayed even in the lanes of Surrey. He said that there was no Act of Parliament which would help them with regard to this matter, and that these posters were disfiguring the lanes of Surrey to such an extent that they were a positive nuisance, and yet in the Act of 1925, which, I take it, is operative today, there are extensive powers given to the county council to deal with the very matter to which he objects.

Sir C. OMAN: Extensive but not enough. The Surrey County Council has expressed itself as being unable to deal with this particular case.

Mr. BLINDELL: That is the point. They are unable to deal with this particular case, because, I presume, there was nothing objectionable in the posters being displayed. If, under the Act of 1925, the Surrey County Council could say that these posters are a nuisance or disturbing to or destroying the amenities of any village life, or that they are displayed in such a way as to obstruct the view of any historic or public building or monument, then they already have power to order their removal straight away. I wonder whether there is so much greed behind that small holder, who evidently to-day is having a tremendous struggle
for existence, in letting his frontage for the display of posters under the circumstances which the hon. Member mentioned. I do not feel that there is very much danger of this Bill getting its Second Reading to-day, because if, after the excellent speech of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Allen), who dared hon. Members opposite to vote for the Bill and so take away from the working man his picture gallery, hon. Members dare so they dare not face the workers any more. I suppose that in his judgment the working classes to-day really have got so very low that they positively cannot afford any picture gallery other than the posters which they see displayed on the hoardings.

Sir A. KNOX: Why cannot they go to the National Gallery which is free to anyone?

Mr. BLINDELL: Many of them do go to the National Gallery. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman was to inquire, he would find that the working classes of this country are quite as interested in art as are the other classes.

Mr. ALLEN: My words were that when the working man was free the picture galleries were shut, and that he had not the resources to have his own picture gallery.

Mr. BLINDELL: That may be so. The posters displayed to-day, or at least a large portion of them, are real works of art and are produced by real artists, and they are creating a tremendous amount of employment for the men who create them. There are two objects in view in regard to this Bill. One is that this Bill aims at giving to the urban district council and the rural district council the power of controlling the exhibition of posters in their particular district. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not rural!"] I think it applies to rural districts. I have been reading the Act of 1907, and I believe that Section 4 gives the rural district council power to do that. Be that as it may, whether they have or have not that power, I think we shall not disagree over that point of view. The people on the spot ought to decide whether posters should or should not be exhibited in certain places. I contend that the powers under the Act of 1907 and the powers under the Act of 1925 are quite ample to cover the requirements of any average
ordinary individual. The desire to extend these powers until the local authority may positively prohibit the exhibition of posters, if, in their opinion, these posters affect the appearance of any district, sets up an arbitrary power which ought not to be set up as against the trade of this country.
I believe that the Bill, if it is passed into law will create a serious amount of unemployment. It certainly will put men out of employment, and I am surprised that Members on this side of the House, who daily are twitting the Government with regard to the extent of the help which they are giving to the workers of this country by way of finding work for those who are unemployed, should today be engaged, not in talking about creating employment, but in saying how much unemployment a Bill of this sort will create. They admit, if this Bill is passed, that unemployment will be created. Men will be thrown out of work, and in order to satisfy the desires of a few people they are quite willing, in spite of 1,500,000 unemployed to-day, to add to the number in order that their particular desires in this connection may be satisfied. As far as I am concerned, I would sooner put a few men into work than put more men out of work under any Bill. I am surprised that the time of this House should be occupied, as probably it will be, for four or five hours to-day, discussing a Bill which is not going to create employment but is going to put men out of work who to-day are earning an honest living. I am surprised that Members should come here with nothing to say in favour of the Bill; the whole of their arguments are put forward with a view to seeing that undue hardship is not going to be created when, as a matter of fact they know very well, or they ought to know, that poster advertising, if these powers go through, will be put into such a position that there will be no posters produced, and no posters displayed.

Sir C. OMAN: Nonsense.

Mr. BLINDELL: You may call it nonsense. Of course it will be nonsense to a man who calls another man a greedy man because he wants to advertise his goods.

Sir C. OMAN: It is nonsense. He wants to spoil his neighbour's property.

Mr. BLINDELL: I think that his neighbour is quite capable of looking after himself.

Sir C. OMAN: The county council have found it impossible to right it.

Mr. BLINDELL: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he was anxious about his neighbour, that his neighbour was anxious to let his frontage and that the county council—and the county council have ample powers—definitely said that there was nothing objectionable there, and they would allow it.

Sir C. OMAN: That was not my statement. What I was saying was that the county council sent a deputation and said that they sympathised with me entirely, but the exact working of the Act prevented them, as they would have liked to have done, ordering the removal of this 20-foot hoarding.

Mr. BLINDELL: I quite appreciate that they sent a deputation. I said earlier in my speech that they have certain powers to deal with anything of an objectionable nature, and these powers, in my judgment, are ample. They came down and saw it, and it was not sufficiently objectionable from their point of view, and the hon. gentleman is frightfully disappointed. I am very sorry.

Sir C. OMAN: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already had his say.

Mr. BLINDELL: I wanted to say a few words with regard to some of the remarks which fell from the hon. and gallant gentleman who introduced this Bill. He said that advertising was not a necessity. I believe it to be an absolute necessity, and I believe that advertising does create a demand for goods, and that advertising will help the distributive trades of this country eventually in the marketing of the goods which the great industrial centres produce. I should be sorry if advertising was discontinued, because many of us do want to be told exactly what is good for us and what is not good for us. It is a peculiar thing but in the advertising world it is coming to be recognised that if you tell a man persistently
enough that a bad thing is good for him you will make him believe eventually that it really is good for him. Advertising does something along these lines. If this Bill passes you will not stop the advertising of certain goods; all you will do will be to close up one particular channel of advertising, and create probably a monopoly in another different channel of advertising. If you shut down poster advertising you may only end in increasing the rate of advertising in the daily newspapers. In my judgment, this Bill is absolutely unnecessary and we ought not to waste further time on it. I hope, should there be a Division, that the Bill will be defeated, and defeated for all time.

Mr. ISAACS: I desire to draw the attention of the House to one or two points which have been overlooked in this Debate. A good deal of stress has been put upon poster advertising. This Bill however, is not restricted to poster advertising. It deals with the giving to urban district councils of power to prevent the exhibition of advertisements. There are other ways of advertising besides the use of posters, and I want the House to recall that within the scope of this Bill are regulations restricting and preventing the exhibition of advertisements. [An HON. MEMBER: "So as not to disfigure."] Certainly. That is the point to which I wanted to apply myself. This is the first time I have spoken, and I hope I shall be allowed to proceed. The Bill provides
power to make bye-laws for regulating, restricting or preventing within their district or any part thereof the exhibition of advertisements so as to disfigure or injuriously affect the appearance or amenities of such district or part thereof.
We have heard something about amenities from hon. Members, something about toffee and beer, but they did not say what kind of thing they wished to see advertised. Is a shop front to come within the scope of the Bill? It does not refer to hoardings, but in the Acts now existing hoardings are mentioned. Surely, it will be argued, if an advertising hoarding can be controlled, then posters outside a newsagent's shop can also be controlled. Are such posters to come within the scope of this Bill? I am bearing in mind that it is only a question of disfigurement, but there is the question of interpretation of what is disfigurement. Some have spoken of toffee and some other things as being
disfiguring. I would ask, is an illuminated sign to be so considered? Some people might think it ugly, but others might think it beautiful.
Take the case of the butcher who advertises by hanging meat in an open shop window. Is that disfigurement? Some would say that it was disfiguring to the amenities of an area to have car-cases so exhibited. That is possible under the scope of this Bill. How long would it be before some of our people who take extreme interest in the prevention of cruelty to animals said "His Master's Voice" advertisement was disfiguring and spoiled the amenities of a place? I ask, are such signs and posters to come within the scope of the proposals of this Bill? Such a proposition is no more extreme than those we have heard regarding toffee and beer. Are tombstones to be restricted if they advertise the virtues of the departed? Some of the tombstones in our cemeteries are monstrosities. Very often they are more useful for advertising the people who made them than for anything else. But it is not only a question of the situation, but of the nature of the advertisement. We shall have next a council saying, "We do not mind your having that poster on that hoarding, but we object to the form of words." Is not that possible under this Bill? Cannot Burton-on-Trent object to the advertising of Guinness' Stout, or Colchester object to the advertising of Whitstable oysters? Also, would it not be possible for York to object to an advertisement of Cadbury's chocolate? There are people who have funny ideas, like the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), who talk of greedy persons. We shall have some of these people, perhaps, dominating these councils and putting their ideas into effect.
There is the question of pictorial posters being disfiguring. May I draw the attention of the House to some of these, and I would show Members some examples of the art of the printer. Some of the finest examples of pictorial posters are those of the Empire Marketing Board. Would they disfigure the bay window of a house such as that to which the hon. Member for Oxford University referred? Under this Bill he might exercise his discretion because he does not wish to see them. Here are others.
Some of them actually beautify the countryside and might be placed anywhere. No-one could object to such posters. There are numerous other examples, but I will not trouble the House with them.
With regard to the point made by the Member for South-East Southwark (Mr. Naylor) on the point of employment, I have gathered together some figures which show that there are 20,000 people, at a minimum, actually engaged in the production and distribution of posters, and I am informed that there is practically an equal number engaged in the construction of hoardings, and so forth. Therefore, it is because I feel that a Bill of this character is going to have some effect, and an adverse effect, on employment—for it is bound to make less employment—that I object to it. This argument cannot be met by the argument
of the hon. Member for Oxford Unversity when he said that objection was raised to the introduction of railways because it would have the effect of introducing unemployment among people employed on stage coaches. But the introduction of railways brought good. The introduction of this Bill can add nothing to the great powers that already exist. I ask the House, on the ground that it will cause unemployment, and because of the danger that will exist in giving local authorities these wide powers, to reject this Bill.

Mr. HURD: rose—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present: House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at Six minutes after One o'Clock until Monday next, 3rd March.